Posted on 02/18/2018 3:59:36 AM PST by smileyface
taking into consideration b o’s past interference in foreign countries elections and/or policies, “congress” should just slumber on.
One would think a person of such stature would know the difference between "affect" and "effect".
“CNBC seems to have missed the most important tweet.”
They didn’t miss it my friend. They ignored it. The fact most of the ad buys were AFTER the election messes up the MSM narrative. CNBC is very much part of MSM.
Designed to divide America? I wasn’t aware Democraps needed any help. You couldn’t do a better job than 8 years of Obozo.
“”Most of the coverage of Russian meddling involves their attempt to effect the outcome of the 2016 U.S. election.”
One would think a person of such stature would know the difference between “affect” and “effect”.”
“Effect” can correctly be used as a verb, meaning “to bring about”, so it’s impossible to prove the author used it unintentionally here.
However, given the context, I agree it was very bad writing, if not bad grammar. A good test is to replace “effect” with “bring about” and see if it sounds natural.
Here it does not sound natural, because since an election must always have one outcome or another, it makes no sense to talk about “bringing it about”, unless you specify some change in the state of the outcome.
Now, if the author had followed the word “effect” with the phrase “a change in”, or “the destruction of” or “a delay in” then it would make perfect sense as a verb meaning “bring about”:
As in “....an attempt to effect (bring about) a change in a U.S. election...”
Yes, that was my point. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.